本文旨在透過梳理朝鮮末期「心說論爭」的發生背景及論爭內容，展示其價值及意義。「心說論爭」承繼了朝鮮儒學自十六世紀以來的朱子學發展，由「心理派」及心理派以外的學者們，針對朱子「心」之概念的理解所引發的一連串辯詰。心理派包括華西學派、寒洲學派，以及蘆沙學派。此一派別是繼承退溪之門「心是理氣合」的說法，而進一步強調要「主性理以言心」。而心理派以外的學者，則以艮齋學派為主，其承繼栗谷「心是氣」之說，堅持要「以氣論心」。他們皆認為自己才是真正宗於朱子學，故論學往來不止，持續了半個多世紀。本文認為，此一論爭十分能作為朝鮮性理學發展三個世紀的總結的代表，對於瞭解朝鮮朱子學必然有所幫助。而由朝鮮朱子學的角度，亦當能在當代朱子學中對「心」一概念的討論，提供一不同的視角。特別是「心理派」之「主性理以言心」的詮釋，充分地展示了：不管是在道德實踐動力來源之說明，或如何實踐道德之問題上，都有必須以「心」作為根源之客觀義理需求。亦即是說，「心理派」的學者們對於道德實踐根源的說明，固然尚不及陸王心學之以一心的充沛朗現即是性理而言。但在遵循朱子學心與理為二的架構下，他們仍展現了有由「心」來說明道德實踐根源的義理需求。他們認為，作為道德實踐根源之「性理」是先驗地具於心，而道德活動就在於心中之理能充分地主宰心，使得心之活動完全是合理的作用。這種主性理的作用而言心之活動，固然與陽明學「心即理」的說法不同，但相對於過去視朱子學與陽明學為儒學發展史上二個水火不容之系統，或能很大程度上地拉近距離。

The aim of the article is to expand the meaning and values of the Xinseol debate. The debate inherits from the Korean tradition since the 16 century, and focuses on the concept of Xin. The argument is the most important one in the later part of the Joseon Dynasty. The Xinseol Debate includes “Xin Li Pei” and its oppositions. “Xin Li Pei” consists of the Hwaseo School, the Hanju school, and the Nosa school. The oppositions include many schools, a major one being the Ganjae school. This article refers three points in the Xinseol Debate. First, this debate reprecents an epitome of the development of the Korean Confucianism in the last three centuries of Joseon Dynasty. Second, since the concept of Xin in Zhu-Xi is very difficult to define and explain, the arguments in the debate would provide a new angle with different views to understand it. Last, we always take the doctrines of Zhu-Xi and Yang-Ming just like fire and ice in the Chinese traditional studies. In my opinion, it’s possible to narrow the gap between these two doctrines through the proposition of “Xin Li Pei”.